Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Oct 6, 12:45 pm, wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

On Oct 6, 6:38 am, Matt Whiting wrote:
Really? Many books still can't agree on the definition of current.
Some say it is the movement of electrons and some say it is the movement
of positive charge and some say it us both. Which is the absolute
truth, Mr. Wizard?
The truth is that the electrons move, not the protons.

You've fallen into the trap you are complaining about and providing
a simplistic answer that isn't true under all circumstances.

Uh...no. The difference, as I pointed out with great redunancy in my
post, is that, in one case, there are two situations:

1. The truth, which the observers know.
2. The untruth, which the obsevers concoct to make the math simpler,
all the while keeping in mind what the truth is.

Too simplistic.

There is more between heaven and Earth than truth and untruth.

You appear to have the same problem that MX has, i.e. a monocromatic
outlook on things which really ****es a lot of people off.

Life, physics, engineering, and flying brush a broader spectrum.

Yeah, there is a lot published about aviation by "experts" that flys
in the face of physics, but really, so what?

I have 4 bookcases of reference books on my sphere of knowledge. There
isn't one of them that doesn't have an "untruth" in them somewhere.

Does that make all those books worthless or imply no one knows the
"real" answer?

Not hardly.

If you really want to know the "truth", USNET is not the place to
find it.

snip rest

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.